Absolutism, Relativism, and Pluralism: Which One is the Most Effective to Solve Moral Problems?

This is another interesting discussion in the beautiful October 2010. After I learnt about Absolutism, Relativism, and Pluralism, I was challenged with a question, "Which one is the most effective to solve moral problems in a society?". Before I answer that question, first, let me briefly explain my understandings about those three different moral positions.

Moral absolutism believes my culture is the best, the most right, and cannot be challenged. As a result, there will be no other culture except my culture. In the other word, other culture is not right, not good and should not be preserved. In my opinion, this morality is very dangerous because it can lead somebody or a community into intolerance, dogmatism, and even extremism. In the history, we could find many horrible cases as practices of moral absolutism. For examples, Christians who forced native Americans to convert and follow Christians beliefs, Moslem fundamentalists who punished and even killed other people who don't to follow their rules.

Moral relativism believes my culture is my culture, your culture is your culture. In this case, there is no right or wrong, because every community holds different morality (descriptive relativism), and if it is valid or invalid it depends on that culture even on the time which the culture is exist (normative relativism). For example, Jesus is the Son of God according to Christianity; and Mohammed is the God's messenger according to Islam. There's nothing wrong about it. The problem is, if we respect all cultures without considering if it is harmful for somebody or not, we then don't have any responsibility to stand against the evil one. For example, a tradition of women's circumcise in a part of Africa or women's self-burning when the husband dies in old Hinduism tradition; should we preserve those tradition?

Moral pluralism believes every culture has room to be exist but it has limits. For example, in Canada, people from all over the world can live peacefully together because the society respects different cultures. Although Canadian has official English and French as official languages, people from India, Africa, Asia, and other European and American countries are allowed to speak and maintain their languages as well as their dances, foods, fashion styles, et cetera. We will not be punished if we are gays or lesbians. We will not be jailed wether we want to use a small skirt or a niqab. Pluralism holds that believes because as humans, we cannot be 100% right (it means, we can be wrong so why don't we value other cultures instead of believe in only one culture), pluralism respects tolerance, and pluralism values different opinions to enrich society. However, as I mentioned before, pluralism has limits. When a culture causes harm for somebody it is absolutely not allowed to be exist in pluralism. For example, women's circumcise and self-burning are not allowed in Canada.

As conclusion, in my opinion, the most effective moral position for me is pluralism because it respects other cultures but it still has limits in order to save humans' life, and the least effective is moral absolutism because it doesn't respect other cultures and can lead extinction to other cultures that might be also very valuable.

Is Buddha the Answer?

This article is related to a topic discussed in my Philosophy course. After reviewing three kinds of religion exist in human world, students were asked to choose which religion seemed to be the most appealing for themselves. For me, that is not an easy question not only because I'm not one of those religions' followers but also I think I still need proper understandings about those religions as I'm pretty sure the followers of those religions learn their virtues for so many years. Despite of those situation, I am trying to share my opinion. Hopefully it could enrich the discussions in ethical issues.

Among three different religions, Navajo, Islam and Buddha, the most appealing religion for me is Buddha.I have four reasons why I choose that religion. Those reasons include the ideas of carrying peace and self control, freedom of speech, self-direction, and life formula.

In Buddha, peace and self control are very important virtues should be considered by the followers. Universal love called "metta" leads a person to love others no matter what is his/her class, caste, religion, and social cultural background. Everybody is the same and should be loved or respected. Even the smallest creatures should be love and not be killed. Buddha followers don't rule over other religions as their wisdom says, "It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles". Buddha followers also don't punish others who have different religion/belief by using any form of violation. They even don't talk bad about others as their wisdom says, "The tongue like a sharp knife... Kills without drawing blood". This virtue could be also found in Navajo and Islam. When Navajo emphasizes to maintain harmony when we have no control (avoid access, do nothing in a new situation, and escape), Islam shows their respect to peaceful world by preserving Aristotle manuscripts and saving Jewish heaven especially in the middle ages. Unfortunately, recently, there are many cases has shown how Islam fundamentalists punish people who are different from them (for example: September Eleven, Bali Bombings, etc.)

Freedom of choice is another characteristic of Buddha. Since human is a creature who is born with abilities to think, ask, seek, and answer; Buddhists respect confusions and discussions about their religion. According to Buddha, "Confusion is the beginning to get more understanding". One who only has less confusion, he/she will only have less knowledge, but one who has more confusion, he/she will have more knowledge. Moreover, instead of forcing people to say yes, Buddha encourages people to learn with their own wisdom about the things which are taught. This characteristic could be also found in the Navajo, which values freedom to listen or ignore. It would be no punishment if somebody doesn't want to listen because there is a room for everything. However, in this case Buddha is more aware about the consequences of freedom of choice since it has "karma" as its life formula. Unlike in Buddha and Navajo, freedom of choice in Islam might be less visible, because Islam emphasizes, "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the Messenger". Moslems believe we should do what Allah wants us to do and they are written in Koran (Moslems' Bible, interpreted by clergies (Ulama). As consequences, forms of punishment might be performed to people who stand against Allah, Mohammed, Koran, and Ulama.

Another interesting characteristic of Buddha is belief that a person is subject who directs her/his life. As their wisdom says, "You are a guardian of yourself". You can be good if you do good things. You will be able to finish your study if you study. You can be healthy if you maintain good exercise. Buddha really believes somebody can reach enlightenment if he/she is willing to try. There's no need to wait until somebody else helps you. This characteristic shows how independent efforts are very valued in Buddha. Unlike Buddha, the Navajo has The Holy Wind and the Islam has Allah to be listened. The Holy Wind (nature) guides Navajos to have less faults, Allah guides Moslems how to live.

The last character I want to discuss is the way Buddha considers form of cause and effect (Karma). Karma understood as life cycles and rebirth until we gain cessation by Awakening/ Enlightenment. It would be no suffer any longer (Samsara) when one gains enlightenment. To gain enlightenment, the followers should carefully consider what they think and what they do. Buddha beliefs all that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him. Again, interestingly, Buddhists don't punish others who don't do good things because according to Buddha, you will not be punished for your anger; you will be punished by your anger". Form of cause and effect seemed to be similar to Navajo's belief which like to maintain harmony or balance. For those who don't maintain harmony will not be punished as well, but Navajo doesn't depict more further how somebody could be punished by him/herself. In Islam, is seemed to be very clear that punishments could come from external sides (imams, society, communities) and internal sides (repentance, fear, anxiety).

As conclusion, could be said Buddha virtues represent elements we need to create a peaceful, democratic, independent, and non-violent society. Since Buddha is a non-theistic religion and claims that everyone could get enlightenment, Buddha's virtues become universal. We don't need to be a Buddhist but we can learn how Buddha's teachings could improve our life qualities.